Saturday, November 22, 2014

Two suspects were
arrested and charged with assault in separate incidents at Logan
International Airport Saturday, State Police said, while a brief
security scare was touched off when a son of former baseball player Curt
Schilling left a toy grenade in his carry-on luggage.

At around
noon, a woman using the ladies’ restroom in Terminal C reported that a
naked man had fallen through the ceiling into the stall area before
running out of the bathroom, State Police spokesman Dave Procopio said.

The
man, later identified as a 26-year-old Cameron Shenk of Boston, then
assaulted an elderly man he encountered upon fleeing from the restroom,
according to Procopio.

“He assaulted the elderly man, bit the man
on the ear causing laceration to ear, and then began choking the man
with [the elderly man’s] own cane,” Procopio said.

After a brief
struggle with troopers, Shenk was taken into State Police custody.
Charges against him include attempted murder, assault and battery on a
police officer, assault and battery on a person over 60, and a lewd and
lascivious act, Procopio said.

TSA took the former Red Sox pitcher and his family into a private room to explain what happened.

The
84-year-old victim was taken to a hospital for treatment of his ear
injuries, and Shenk was transported to Massachusetts General Hospital
for injuries suffered when he fell through the ceiling, Procopio said.
One trooper received a minor injury while arresting Shenk, Procopio
said.

State Police investigation indicates that Shenk had snuck
into the woman’s bathroom just before noon, taken his clothes off in one
of the stalls, and climbed into the crawl space above the restroom
before crashing through the ceiling, according to Procopio.

Just a
few minutes before, motorists outside Terminal A saw a young woman
passenger screaming from inside a vehicle that had just pulled up at the
Delta Air Lines entrance, Procopio said. The woman had kicked out one
of the car’s windows in distress, Procopio said.

Troopers
followed the car into Terminal B at the United Airlines entrance, where a
cruiser pulled in front of the car, allowing the woman to leave the
vehicle, according to Procopio. The victim, later identified as a
21-year-old Woburn resident, said the driver of the vehicle had punched
her in the face after she refused to give him money and would not let
her out of the car.

The driver, 52-year-old Anton Hilton of Roxbury, was arrested and charged with assault and battery and kidnapping.

The
victim is a friend of the driver’s daughter and had been staying with
him, said Procopio, who added that the woman declined medical attention
for injuries sustained during the incident.

Shenk and Hilton will appear in East Boston District Court as early as Monday, according to Procopio.

The
incident with Schilling was made public in a series of tweets that
began at 7:26 a.m.: “Start your day with this. Going through airport
security. Son says “DAD! I think I [left a] fake grenade in my bag.”

Schilling,
who did not say which of his sons was involved, later tweeted: “15 TSA
agents are on their walkie talkies. Police show up and everyone in line
is shooed 50 yards away. Police, TSA could not...have been cooler once
they realized what was happening.”

Jennifer Mehigan, assistant
director of media relations for the Massachusetts Port Authority, which
runs Logan, confirmed that the incident had occurred on Saturday.

She
provided no further details, saying only, “The safety and security of
the people that use our facilities as well as our employees is our top
priority.”- Source: http://www.bostonglobe.com

Dan McCartan appeared at Omagh Magistrates Court last week after planners lost patience with Tyrone's answer to Howard Hughes.

In
2008 the revealed how McCartan had built a runway on land beside his
home in Carrickmore before planning permission had been granted.

Eventually planners granted him retrospective permission for the 1000 metre runway at his Whitebridge Road home.

They also let him retain a farm shed which he had converted into an aircraft hangar.

At the time McCartan was the talk of the local area and people wondered what he planned to use his remote country airstrip for.

DiscoveredDespite
telling the Sunday World back then that the runway was purely for
"private use" and would not be used for business purposes McCartan is
now running a lucrative flying school from the strip.

But now it
has emerged that McCartan, nicknamed 'Taiwan Dan' because of his car
parts business, has failed to comply with two Enforcement Notices which
were issued by Planning Service.

Those notices - which by law must be complied with - were in respect of two storage areas for end-of-life cars.

Meanwhile
the Sunday World has learned McCartan was in court earlier this year
after he was convicted of possessing illegal fuel.

The
57-year-old pleaded guilty in March to having thousands of litres of the
illegal fuel which had been laundered in an illegal depot in Co.
Tyrone.

The plant was seized by HM Revenue and Customs and
investigators discovered huge amounts of the petrol was being stored on
land owned by McCartan.

McCartan received a four month suspended sentence, and was ordered to pay a whopping £15,000 compensation fee for tax evaded.

The offence is said to have taken place between November 9 and November 27, 2009.

A
defence counsel said that it was accepted by the crown that McCartan
was not a "major player'' involved in the laundering of fuel.

However,
he said the father-of-six had "foolhardedly" taken possession of three
loads of oil to sell at a time when he was under a lot of financial
pressures.

Guilty

"The difference in price was only a matter of pence per litre," said his defence QC.

"It
is a good example of how it is so foolish to become involved in
something which has small amounts of money to be gained but which have
devastating financial consequences.

"He foolishly gave into temptation in this case. As a result of his guilty plea, he has lost his good name and his reputation."

But McCartan was back before the courts last week after he was accused of refusing to adhere to the Planning Service orders.

During
the brief hearing, a defence solicitor asked for the case to be
adjourned and McCartan is due before the court again on December 13th.

Despite his claims to the contrary six years ago McCartan was seemingly always planning to start up a flying school.

C-More Flying School has been operating for six years and offers packages for the budding pilot.

According
to their Facebook page: "C-More flying school, situated in the heart of
scenic Tyrone! We offer pleasure flights in our Microlight aircraft, or
for those who are feeling more adventurous we also offer lessons with
our fully qualified instructors. You will be made feel welcome in our
club house with refreshments, pool table, TV and computer games."- Source: http://www.independent.ie

COEUR d'ALENE - Kootenai
County commissioners and an application review committee met Friday to
review 19 applications for a new airport manager.

They also decided to re-open the application deadline to Dec. 12.

Commissioner
Todd Tondee said the commissioners were joined by three members of the
airport advisory committee and interim Airport Manager Phil Cummings.

The
county's human resource director was on vacation, and the two incoming
commissioners - David Stewart and Marc Eberlein - were invited but
decided not to attend.

"It's really not on my watch right now," Eberlein said, explaining why he chose not to participate.

Stewart said he didn't go because he had business in Spokane.

"The
way I see it, the only choice the commissioners have now is to move
forward or wait until after January," Stewart said, adding that he wants
to give them the benefit of the doubt. "I guess it will depend on how
strongly they feel they are doing the best thing for the county."

The
review committee met in executive session, which was closed to the
public. However, it opened a public meeting after the executive session
to vote on extending the application deadline.

"And we are going
to interview a couple of those applicants," Tondee said. "But we will
wait until after we review the next round of applicants."

SMETHPORT (EC) — Have you
ever dreamed of learning to fly? Are you an aviation buff looking to
meet new friends? Perhaps you are a civic-minded person seeking a
rewarding way of making a positive impact on the community? In any case,
McKean Aviation wants you.Founded in 1958, McKean Aviation is a
non-profit organization based at the Bradford Regional Airport and
comprised of pilots, aircraft owners and others who share a common
passion for aviation and are dedicated to promoting general aviation
interests. “It is a general aviation advocacy organization,” said Jim
Neely, a spokesperson for the organization.Having recently
reorganized, McKean Aviation is joining forces with the Experimental
Aircraft Association, an international group of aviation enthusiasts
that has grown over the years and now includes almost every phase of
aviation and aeronautics. “The move is expected to bring a wealth of
educational and promotional expertise to our local group,” said Neely.Neely emphasized that the two organizations will remain separate.Working
in cooperation with airport management and the Bradford Regional
Airport Authority, McKean Aviation intends to grow general aviation
representation on the field by promoting new pilot starts, providing
opportunities for continuing pilot safety education, partnering with the
airport on improvements and developing programs geared toward youth
involvement. At the same time, McKean Aviation recognizes its role in
promoting economic development at the airport.Neely said, “We
want to build a stronger relationship between the airport authority and
pilots, management and pilots and pilots themselves.”Support for
this goal has come in a meeting with County Commissioner Joe DeMott,
airport authority chairman, and Mike Glesk, a member of the airport
advisory committee. Bradford has a legendary and colorful
aviation history with roots dating back to C. Taylor and Taylorcraft,
and William Piper of Piper Aircraft Corporation, pioneers in making the
dream of flying a reality.“We want to share our passion for
aviation and spark an interest in others to join us,” Neely said. “We
also want our communities to renew their love for their airport. One of
our first goals will be to develop an annual aviation celebration event
at the airport for everyone to attend and enjoy.”Alicia
Dankesreiter, the airport’s interim director, has been really receptive
to this goal and is “very willing to cooperate with us,” Neely said.Neely
has sent a “challenge” letter to local aviation enthusiasts in which he
mentioned his observations and comments from pilots about the
importance of becoming partners with the airport authority and
management in working toward same goals. In that letter, Neely wrote,
“To build a bright future for general aviation at the Bradford Regional
Airport we recognize it is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. I
hope you will join us.”According to Neely, “I’ve been well-pleased with the response to the letter. It has been excellent.”Due
in large part to that letter, 16-17 people — almost half of them are
pilots — are now attending McKean Aviation’s monthly meetings on the
second Thursday at 7 p.m. at the airport’s conference room. Neely said,
“A lot of people, such as Mike Kocjancic, Dave Zuckerman and Bruce Klein
are stepping up and taking their turns at the plate.”For more information, contact Neely at 837-8424 or Klein at 642-9486.- Source: http://www.bradfordera.com

The owner of the Clutha
bar, where ten people died after a police helicopter crashed through the
roof a year ago this week, has revealed plans to reopen the Glasgow pub
with a memorial to those who lost their lives.Alan Crossan told
Scotland on Sunday that the first anniversary of the tragedy next
Saturday would be “very difficult for all concerned” but is looking
ahead with plans for a memorial stone to occupy the center of the new
Clutha bar when it reopens next year.The stone will feature two
interlinked hands, in tribute to those who rushed to help that fateful
night, with the ten fingers representing the ten lives lost.“You
have to be really sensitive when rebuilding somewhere that people have
died. It has taken me a long time to get it straight in my head what I
want to do with it. It won’t be an exact recreation but I would hope it
will have the same sense of character. The Clutha was never about the
bar itself but more the people who drank there,” Crossan said.More
than 100 people were inside listening to ska band Esperanza when
tragedy struck the Clutha at 10:25pm on 29 November, 2013. As well as
the ten people who died, many more sustained terrible injuries.Pilot
David Traill and police constables Tony Collins and Kirsty Nelis were
killed when the Eurocopter EC 135 went down, while those killed in the
pub were John McGarrigle, Mark O’Prey, Gary Arthur, Colin Gibson, Robert
Jenkins and Samuel McGhee. Joe Cusker was pulled from the wreckage but
later died in hospital.To mark the anniversary a service will be
held at Glasgow Cathedral on Saturday while numerous other private acts
of remembrance will also take place.The Clutha, in Stockwell
Street on the north bank of the River Clyde, is one of Glasgow’s oldest
pubs and was a popular venue for live music.Crossan yesterday
denied suggestions that he was planning to sell the Clutha site or build
flats where the bar used to stand. “There have been a lot of rumours
floating around about my plans, people saying I was looking to build
flats but that has never crossed my mind,” he said.Asked whether
he felt the authorities were doing enough in regard to the
investigation into the crash, he said: “No, it is one year on and we
still don’t have any information on what happened to the helicopter –
the families need closure.”An investigation is still being
carried out by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and it is hoped
that the full report will be made available early next year.Crossan
has also set up a charity, The Clutha Trust, with the aim of helping
children from disadvantaged backgrounds into the music industry. A trust
launch night is to be held this Friday at the Barrowlands featuring
Sandi Thom, Horse, Carly Conner and Denny Oliver.A separate fund
set up to raise cash for the victims families has so far amassed
£500,000 while the company that operated the police helicopter Bond Air
Services has started making payments to the victims after accepting
strict liability for the losses suffered by those killed or injured in
the crash.Lawyers for the victims have revealed that full
compensation payments are close to being reached. But in some of the
cases of people who were seriously injured, the payouts could take
longer given the extent of their injuries.More than 30 cases are
being handled by Glasgow-based Thompsons ­Solicitors, while aviation
specialists Irwin Mitchell, have 17 clients.- Source: http://www.scotsman.comhttp://www.aaib.gov.uk/2_2014http://www.aaib.gov.uk/9_2013

Scott and Connie Kumpf
and their three sons were exactly the type of passenger the Colorado
Springs Airport hoped to attract during the traditionally busy
Thanksgiving holiday travel week.

The Castle Rock family was
traveling Saturday from the Springs to Guatemala to visit their son
Joshua, who recently finished his mission work for The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was the first time they used the
Colorado Springs Airport.

"We could have booked the same flight
through Houston from Denver, but it was at least $100 per person cheaper
to fly from Colorado Springs," Scott Kumpf said. "It is convenient and
about the same distance to either airport. It is quiet and the parking
lot shuttle bus was right there to pick us up."

Connie Kumpf also
mentioned the added bonus of free parking - the Springs airport has
eliminated all charges for short- and long-term parking during November
and December - but the couple said fares were the deciding factor in
choosing to fly from Colorado Springs.

Several passengers
interviewed early Saturday cited convenience and comparable fares as the
primary reason for flying from the Springs rather than driving to
Denver International Airport to catch a flight. None of the 27 people in
nine families interviewed cited parking as the most important factor in
deciding to fly from the Springs, and many were not aware that parking
was free until they arrived at the airport.

Steven and Nicole
Brewer of Colorado Springs chose to travel from the Springs because they
were flying for the first time with their two small children and wanted
to get to the airport and into the terminal quickly rather than drive
for more than an hour to Denver. Parking wasn't an issue for the family
since a friend dropped them off at the terminal.

"I usually go
straight to Denver rather than catching the short flight" from the
Springs to Denver, Steven Brewer said. "It normally costs us more to
drive to Denver, but the savings of flying from Colorado Springs is not
worth the risk (of a delay) in the short connection to Denver."

Glenn
and Karen Olsen of Colorado Springs were flying to Fort Lauderdale,
Fla., through Houston for a Carribean cruise and chose to fly from the
local airport for covenience, Karen Olsen said. The couple booked their
flight before the free parking promotion was announced.

Jane and
Grace Ridings of Colorado Springs were headed to New York through Denver
and chose the local airport primarily for convenience.

"We got
flights (from Colorado Springs) at competitive fares and we prefer to
use this airport because it is so convenient. You can get parked,
checked in and through security in minutes. The free parking didn't play
a role in the decision to fly from here, but it is a very nice perk,"
Jane Ridings said.

Kenneth and Gabbi Moore and their two sons,
all from Colorado Springs, were flying through Houston to a family
vacation in Charleston, S.C. Parking wasn't an issue for the family
since they were dropped off by a friend.

"The fares (between the
two airports) were competitive and once you factor in driving to DIA and
paying the cost of long-term parking," the couple decided to fly from
the Springs, Gabbi Moore said.

Pavielle Wright of Colorado
Springs always flies from the local airport, but usually while she is
working as a flight attendant for SkyWest Airlines as part of a flight
crew based at the airport. She was traveling Saturday to Los Angeles to
celebrate her birthday with family.

"It's a small, quick airport and very comfortable. I love flying in and out of here," she said.

The
newest addition to the Michigan State Police aviation unit is a
high-tech remote-controlled helicopter, better known as a drone. Pilots
have been training on it for almost a year and they hope to get Federal
Aviation Administration approval in the next 30 days to use it across
the state.

“We’re just waiting for the FAA to come and take a look at our program,” said 1st Lt. Chris Bush.

State
Police want to use it for search and rescue missions, barricaded
gunmen, even natural disaster damage assessments. But they aren’t the
only ones who want eyes in the skies.

The drone industry is
poised to boom in Michigan and around the world. Hobbyists,
entrepreneurs and businesses are finding new ways to use a technology
that seemed like science fiction just a few years ago.

Drone
classes at Northwest Michigan College in Traverse City are full and
teachers must update the curriculum every semester just to keep up with
the newest technology.

But the technology continues to raise
questions about air safety, privacy and security. And like the dawn of
the automobile era, the age of unmanned aerial systems — as they are
formally known — is evolving much faster than the laws.

In a much
watched case in Virginia, the National Transportation Safety Board last
week ruled that drones are indeed aircraft subject to federal
regulation, overturning an earlier ruling from a judge.

Hobbyists
who keep their drones within line of sight, under 400 feet and more
than three miles from an airport are not regulated.

Federal,
state and local government agencies, including universities, can get
permission to fly them and others can get special permission for
experiments and research. The FAA bans commercial use of drones, though
it’s working on proposed rules to make that possible.

In Michigan
now, Michigan State and Central Michigan universities and Northwest
Michigan College are among those that have permission to use them.

State
Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, proposed state-level regulation
of drones almost two years ago, but the legislation hasn’t moved and the
controversies show no signs of dying down.

McMillin said last
week he still has privacy concerns and hopes the presence of the State
Police drone will prompt more discussion.

Federal regulators
insist that commercial drone use is illegal without permission. But that
hasn’t stopped early adopters from launching:

■Real estate firms use drones to take aerial photos to market properties.

■Police agencies hope to use drones to help find lost people, photograph accident scenes, and conduct surveillance.

Economic impact

In
2015, Michigan can expect about $31 million in economic impact from
drones, a figure that’s expected to triple by 2017, according to a study
by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a
non-profit industry group based in Arlington, Va.

About half of
the estimated economic benefit comes from direct spending on
manufacturing by small-scale Michigan companies, as well as sales and
service of the aircraft. The rest comes from that money being
recirculated through the economy, according to the study.

Nationwide,
the industry is expected to grow from about $2.2 billion in 2015 to
more than $10 billion by 2025 including more than 100,000 jobs,
according to the study.

Harry Arnold of Detroit is one of the
early adopters. In under a minute, he can pull a homemade helicopter
from his van, set it on a launch pad and get the blades twirling using a
book-sized remote control.

The aircraft, a quadcopter made from a
couple hundred dollars worth of parts found in a local hobby shop,
rises slowly and beams back a birdseye view to video screen on the
ground.

“This is the dawn of a new type of transportation
delivery systems,” said Arnold, who has been shooting drone videos for
about five years now. “It’s kind of like if you had an automobile in
1901.”

Arnold has built a business combining two of his passions,
remote controlled aircraft and photography. He’s done real estate and
utility work, and even some personal use.

“I did a wedding at U of M stadium and I did one at Meadowbrook,” he said.

Arnold
said operating drone cameras is his full-time job, and while he doesn’t
deliberately confront regulators, he doesn’t pay much heed to the
Federal Aviation Administration.

“They are just trying to keep the genie in a bottle,” he said.

Following the rules

The
FAA certifies aircraft, pilots and even mechanics who work on them, to
ensure safety, so it’s not a surprise it wants to regulate drones,
especially for commercial use, said Stephen Tupper, the head of the
aviation law section for the Michigan Bar.

“The FAA has had a
very, very broad interpretation of what is commercial,” he said. “If
you’re shooting a music video and there is a commercial purpose to it,
they FAA is probably going to take the position that that is a
commercial operation and that is covered.”

But Tupper said gray
areas still exist. What happens if a hobbyist uses a drone to take
aerial photos of his neighborhood and then a neighbor asks to buy one?

“Does it matter what you intended when you launched?” Tupper said. “Does it matter what you ultimately want to use it for?”

Those are questions that haven’t been answered definitively yet, Tupper said.

Demand for training

Northwest
Michigan College in Traverse City offers three courses in unmanned
aircraft systems, and they have been full, said director of aviation
Aaron Cook.

Aviation students can take them as electives and students in the engineering technology program can take them as well.

“Technically, you cannot have a degree in unmanned aerial vehicles,” Cook said.

Cook
said most of the students who study the systems end up working for
contractors for the Department of Defense, which has been using drones
for years to patrol hostile territory and hunt terrorists.

Cook
said when most people think of drones, they imagine military vehicles
used abroad to hunt terrorists. But as the technology has proliferated
and become more inexpensive, all sorts of civilian uses have popped up.

He
acknowledges that the technology is changing so quickly that systems
being taught today could be obsolete in 12 to 18 months as they are
replaced by newer systems. “Every semester we have to retool the program
to stay current.”

Like automobiles, drones bring together a
variety of technologies. Manufacturers are constantly working with foam
and carbon fiber to reduce weight. New batteries let them fly longer.
Computer systems create better controls and software processes the
images they capture.

Police tread carefullyMichigan
State Police last year used a Homeland Security grant to buy its
$160,000 drone made by Aeryon Labs, a Canadian company that makes them
for military, law enforcement and commercial operations.

The
drone carries a high definition camera, can fly for about 50 minutes on a
single battery charge, withstand wind-gusts of up to 40 mph. It has a
range of several miles, though the current certificate of authorization
requires pilots to keep it close enough to see from the ground.

But even shopping for one raises legal questions.

“I
had to actually go to Canada to view Aeryon fly it,” said Bush, the
commander of the field support and aviation section. “Even going to some
conference, you can’t see them fly unless you know someone who’s got a
training certificate of authorization.”

The FAA granted a
certificate of authorization for State Police to use it for training
purposes and is reviewing an application to use it in police work.

The Oakland County Sheriff’s office also is awaiting permission to fly a drone.

Last
year, the county used $34,000 in drug forfeiture money to buy a
star-shaped copter with six propellers made by Aerial Imagery Works of
Troy. Sheriff Michael Bouchard said the process is painstaking slow, and
already highly regulated.

The sheriff deputies who will fly must be certified pilots, Bouchard said.

He
said concerns about surveillance are misguided, noting the aircraft can
only fly for minutes at a time under 400 feet where pilots can see it
from the ground.

“If we can see it, everyone can see it,” Bouchard said. “This is not a surveillance device, it’s an assessment device.”

One of the concerns raised by drone use is the collection of aerial video and what becomes of it.

“Data retention is a big thing,” Bush said. “We met with the ACLU to hear their concerns.”

Bush
said the state is still working on policies, but it plans to treat
aerial footage from the drone the same way it treats footage shoot from
cameras mounted to the dashboard of patrol cars.

If the footage
becomes necessary in a criminal case, it will be logged into evidence.
Otherwise, the computer chips that hold it will be kept for a time,
likely 30 days, and then recorded over.

“We want to make sure we do it right,” Bush said.

John Wisely is a reporter for the Detroit Free Press.

Hobby or commercial?

The
Federal Aviation Administration regulates unmanned aerial aircraft,
unless they are considered hobbies or recreational in nature.

Hobby or recreational uses include:

■Flying model aircraft.

■Taking drone photos for personal use.

■Surveying crops for watering and fertilizing needs when crops are for personal enjoyment.

Neptune Aviation’s big
firefighting jets are all back in Missoula for the winter, while their
owners watch the mailbox for news of their flying future.

“The
Forest Service is coming out with seven of what we’re calling the
Next-Gen 2.0 contracts,” Neptune Chief Executive Officer Ron Hooper
said. “We expected to see the notice on the first of November. We’re
anxious to see the RFP (request for proposals) so we can see how many
aircraft we’ve got working next year.”

Neptune still has three
years remaining on its “legacy” contract with the Forest Service that
covers six of its aging P2V propeller-driven retardant bombers and one
of its new BAe-146 jet bombers. But its one-season contracts for three
more BAe-146s have expired.

Meanwhile, the company has brought on
two more of the jets, for a total of six. The BAe’s are Neptune’s
answer to the Forest Service’s next-generation air tanker policy, which
calls for a private fleet of 18 to 28 modern aircraft able to carry at
least 3,000 gallons of fire retardant and travel at least 350 mph to
fight forest fires.

Five other companies have successfully landed
next-gen contracts. Several of those challenged Neptune’s bids for a
slice of the business and got its contract awards overturned.

The
competitors include two DC-10 jets belonging to 10 Tanker Air Carrier,
two RJ85 jets (similar to the BAe) from Aero Flite Inc., two MD87s from
Aero Air LLC and one C-130Q from Coulson Aviation.

The Forest
Service also can call on eight U.S. Air National Guard C-130s equipped
with modular airborne firefighting systems. Minden Air Corp. has
developed a BAe-146 for firefighting, but hasn’t met the requirements to
bring it into service.

“We fully expect all our five competitors to be making offers on these next contracts,” Hooper said.

And
that doesn’t count 72 single-engine air tankers, three water-scooper
planes and 668 heavy, medium and light helicopters under various types
of government firefighting contract.

***

Forest Service Director of Fire and Aviation Management Tom Harbour said the new contracts are still undergoing fine-tuning.

“We
hope within the next month or so to have that contract out,” Harbour
said last week. “We’re trying to learn from each iteration of this
contract, trying to make the changes that make a better contract for
vendors and for us.”

While the big requirements for payload and
speed haven’t changed, Harbour said a lot of work has gone into treating
all vendors on a level playing field. That’s hard when the new players
have brought on a wide variety of planes, from converted military C-130s
with removable retardant tanks to DC-10 jumbo jets using modified
helicopter tanks.

“One thing that I found fascinating had to do
with specific take-off characteristics at an airport of specific name,
specific altitude, temperature, set of conditions – very technical
stuff,” Harbour said. “We put something in, and vendors look at their
specs and say, ‘What did you mean?’ So we’ve found ourselves making
certain about all these details on runway lengths, temperatures, density
and altitude characteristics.”

At the same time, the Forest Service is researching the effectiveness of air tankers.

The
second phase of its “Aerial Firefighting Use and Effectiveness” study
started in August. It compiles records of each retardant drop, type of
aircraft, mission intent and outcome, as well as the kinds of fire
behavior, weather, forest type and other factors describing the
incident. The study may run through 2020.

“We’ve got to be able
to more effectively measure the impact those air tankers and their drops
had on the objectives the on-the-ground firefighters are trying to
achieve," Harbour said. “We can have fairly nuanced objectives for
wildfire. Sometimes we want to put them out as quickly as we can, like
the Black Cat fire (north of Missoula’s Wye in 2007).

"To the
other side of the wildfire spectrum, we’d handle a fire inside the Bob
(Marshall Wilderness Area) a completely different way. We want to have
air tankers that are effective in both those situations. So we study
that, and then work back upstream to translate those into effective
contracts.”

Congress also provided the Forest Service with seven
C-130 cargo planes decommissioned from the U.S. Coast Guard. Harbour
said those planes can use the MAFFS tanks, but the agency wants to refit
them with larger gravity-fed tanks like the private companies have
developed.

He added that those planes would eventually be handed
over to private companies to fly and maintain while the government keeps
ownership over the next two or three years.

“I’m a firm believer
that the things we learn from healthy ecosystems, the diversity we see
there, can be a good idea for us,” Harbour said. “We expect to have good
competition. When we get into that situation, that results in a good
buy for the Forest Service.”

The unprecedented power outage that hit Vietnam’s largest airport on Thursday took place because the uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems that power the Ho Chi Minh City Area Control Center (ACC) went offline, the head of the country’s aviation watchdog said Friday.The ACC, which oversees flights to and from Tan Son Nhat International Airport situated in the city, has three sources of power supply: the national power grid, generators, and the UPS.There were no problems with the power from the national grid or generators at the time of the blackout, but one of the three UPS units at the ACC failed, Lai Xuan Thanh, head of the Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam (CAAV), told reporters in Hanoi.“As ACC technicians tried to restart the failed UPS, the other two broke down as well,” Thanh added.The UPS is capable of supplying power to the whole flight operating system at the ACC.“The center was receiving power from the national grid and the generators via the UPS units, so when all of them broke down, the power was cut,” Thanh elaborated.The power cut lasted from 11:05 am to 12:19 pm and disabled the radar system that controls air traffic at the airport.The incident, which Thanh said was the first of its kind in Vietnamese aviation history, affected 92 flights.At the time the power went out, 54 out of the 92 affected flights were within the city’s flight information region (FIR), according to the CAAV chief.As of 3:40 pm Thursday, only two out of the three UPS units had resumed operation, while the last device only came back online around noon the following day, Thanh said.The CAAV suspended two people from the ACC on Thursday for investigation following the power failure.The suspended are the leader and a technician on the team that was on duty at the ACC when the dangerous incident occurred.The authority also demanded a review of the technical operations at the center.The CAAV will continue inspecting the case and release an official report on it by November 29.Tan Son Nhat, which is the largest airport in Vietnam, handles about 20,000 million passengers a year.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Helicopter tourism along the Hudson River isn't going away, at least not yet.

Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio sat down with members of a New York and New Jersey delegation advocating for residents who want to ban helicopter tours in New York and on the Hudson River.

In attendance were U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler and U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, both of New York, as well as representatives from the offices of Sen. Robert Menendez and U.S. Rep. Albio Sires.

Robert Gottheim, the district director for Nadler, said that de Blasio heard their argument and understands that they want a ban on helicopter tours. However, there is no timetable for a resolution and the anti-helicopter group is in "wait and see" mode, Gottheim added.

For Stop the Chop co-founder and Hoboken resident Brian Wagner, that isn't good enough.

"de Blasio keeps digging himself in a deeper hole. It's that kind of lackadaisical attitude that is bringing this thing to a head," said Wagner, whose group contends the helicopters raise quality of life and safety concerns. "He's apparently been dubbed the chronically tardy mayor because he is afraid of making a decision, just like with the horseless carriage industry. His main concern is loss of jobs."

Wagner says de Blasio has the authority to terminate the city's contract with Saker Aviation -- the owner of the helicopter tour companies that operate out of the Downtown Manhattan Heliport -- at any time because the property is owned by the city.

Ian Fried, a spokesman for the New York City Economic Development Corporation released a statement on behalf of de Blasio's office in which he said the city is evaluating the issue and working with elected officials and community groups to find the right solution.

Fried pointed to statistics that contend there has been an 80 percent drop in complaints within the city's purview regarding helicopters since it implemented the Helicopter Sightseeing Plan in 2010. He said 86 percent of noise complaints received across New York City were regarding helicopters outside of the city's purview, including emergency services, news, charter and other kinds of flights.

Wagner says the number of complaints filed is diminished due to the fact that New Jersey residents cannot file complaints on the New York help line. Meanwhile, Wagner says on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River, choppers fly at a lowered height of 900 feet due to FAA regulations.

"People will say when you move along the waterfront you know it's urban," said Wagner. "But while most sounds go away, those mechanical buzzards go all day, all the time."

Delia von Neuschtaz, who co-founded Stop the Chop with Wagner, lives in Battery Park City, roughly five minutes from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport and claims that on a clear day a helicopter passes by every two minutes.

"It's like living in the opening sequence of M.A.S.H. day in and day out."

According to von Neuschatz, the helicopter tour industry has little to no impact on the New York City economy. She added that the roughly 300 jobs the industry creates are in New Jersey, as the helicopter companies store all their choppers in a Kearny facility.

Helicopters Matter, a coalition comprised of helicopter industry players advocating against helicopter air traffic regulation, find the claims of Stop the Chop to be unfounded. The group states that only 13 complaints were filed against New York City helicopter traffic this summer, which they perceive to be a low number.

"As a military veteran and pilot for over two decades, this job allows me -- and hundreds of others like me -- to provide for our families," said Patrick Day, Helicopters Matter spokesman and pilot. "Beyond our own jobs, air tours generate tens of millions of dollars for the Tri-state area, monies that go towards myriad public services that benefit millions of residents, including those along the Hudson River."

This summer, a number of Hudson County mayors joined Menendez on the Hoboken waterfront in support of a ban on helicopter tourism. Sires too has long championed a ban on tourist helicopters.

The U.S. Department of Transportation wants answers to some questions before deciding if it will give a stamp of approval to an airline that has applied to provide daily flights between Youngstown Warren Regional Airport and O'Hare International Airport in Chicago.

A letter from Lauralyn Remo, Chief of the DOT'S Air Carrier Fitness Division, asks the legal counsel for Aerodynamics Incorporated for information and an update on the status of a civil lawsuit filed last year in federal court against ADI CEO Scott Beale.

A jury found in favor of one of Beale's former business partners who claimed he was defrauded by Beale. The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.

In October, the judge hearing the case threw out a request by Beale to throw out the judgment as excessive.

DOT is asking ADI for a copy of the original complaint filed in the case, as well as the judgment and the status of the case.

Chief Remo points out in her letter that this is a second attempt by the DOT to obtain information on Beale's legal case.

The letter from DOT notes that the documents requested pertain directly to the compliance disposition of one of ADI's key personnel.

The government has an obligation to determine if the company has access to resources sufficient to begin operations without posing a risk to consumers.

The letter from DOT also asks for citizenship information for ADI's Chief Inspector Robert Anderson, Chief Pilot R.K. Smithley, and Director of Maintenance Matthew Moreau.

The DOT also asks for the status of an FAA investigation simply identified with the number 2015SO65002.

ADI has fifteen days to respond to the request from DOT.

The public is permitted to file comments on ADI's application for service. According to the online federal database, two comments have been filed, but only one can be accessed by the public.

The anonymous posting claims it was submitted on behalf of “various interested entities,” and questions the financial stability of Aerodynamics Incorporated. The unknown author claims that the agreement between ADI and the airport will place consumers at risk.

The air carrier pointed out in a previous filing that it is assured a 5% profit margin on the Youngstown Warren Regional Airport service under a $1.2 million revenue guarantee provided by the airport, the Western Reserve Port Authority, Mahoning County, Trumbull County, various private sector corporations and YNGAir Partners, a nonprofit organization providing community based support for the airport.

ADI summed up the guarantee by asserting, “Such assurance is unheard of in the context of certificate applications, which ordinarily involve a significant commercial risk on the part of the applicant. By virtue of the revenue guarantee, ADI's initial pattern of scheduled service will be essentially risk-free.”

Local airport officials have expressed confidence that ADI will pass DOT inspection, and predict that flights could begin in March.

(Reuters) - American Airlines Group Inc subsidiary Envoy Air plans to transfer at least 50 Embraer 145 aircraft to other regional carriers beginning in early 2015 in a move that will lead to job cuts, according to an internal letter reviewed by Reuters.

American said it decided to transfer the aircraft because the number of pilots at Envoy has dwindled in recent months. The move is the latest setback for the regional carrier since it announced about 50 other job cuts last month.

"Given the number of Envoy pilots flowing through to American each month or leaving due to normal attrition, Envoy will not have the pilots we need to fly our 2015 schedule," Kenji Hashimoto, American's senior vice president of regional carriers, said in the letter.

"Without a cost-effective pilot agreement in place, Envoy will not secure new jets and faces challenges in recruiting new pilots without the promise of a renewed fleet," he added.

Envoy pilots rejected a labor contract in March.

While baggage handlers, ticket and gate agents will keep their jobs, Envoy will likely fire some maintenance workers, according to a spokesperson at American who asked not to be named. It was not immediately clear how the news would impact flight attendants.

One of American's other regional subsidiaries, Piedmont Airlines, will receive at least 20 of the transferred aircraft. Trans States Airlines and a second contractor yet to be announced will receive the remaining jets, the letter said.

SkyWest Airlines, which operates daily flights out of San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, is removing all of its turboprop aircraft from service and replacing them with regional jets.

Skywest Inc. aims to "improve SkyWest's overall efficiency and long-term profitability," according to a statement released by the Utah-based company. As well, the company noted that retirement of the 30-seat Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia fleet is due in part to "increased costs and challenges associated with new (FAA) FAR117 flight and duty rules." The rules, implemented in January 2014, were established to give commercial pilots more rest between flights in an effort to combat fatigue.

"The way the aircraft and the crews are scheduled, the costs have increased," said Marissa Snow, spokeswoman for SkyWest. "And there are maintenance costs as these aircraft age. There is definitely an evolution toward larger aircraft."

The transition to 50-seat Bombardier CRJ200 jets is expected to be complete by May 2015.

It's not yet known how Skywest's decision will impact service at the San Luis Obispo airport. However, SkyWest plans to work closely with airport administration "on fleet availability and what that may mean for San Luis Obispo specifically in terms of jet service potential," Snow said.

SkyWest, which currently operates 44 turboprop aircraft, has six flights daily to Los Angeles and five to San Francisco out of the San Luis Obispo airport. SkyWest Airlines operates as United Express, Delta Connection, American Eagle and US Airways Express under contractual agreements with their respective airlines. It also operates flights for Alaska Airlines.

SkyWest serves markets in the United States, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean and has a fleet of about 751 regional aircraft.

"We've been in SLO since 1986, and we have a strong partnership with the community," Snow said. "We're just evaluating fleet availability right now."

Kevin Bumen, general manager of the San Luis Obispo airport, said more information should be available from SkyWest in the next few weeks. But he sees the larger planes as a passenger enhancement.

"It's a big event for the airport," he said. "It's the first time we'll have all-jet air service here. … It’s a significant step for the airport and the airlines.”

A hot air balloon wrapped itself around a light pole at Aranda Playing Fields while landing, causing minor damage to the balloon but left 16 passengers and its pilot uninjured.

ACT firefighters had to come and cut down the balloon which had been finishing its journey when an unexpected gust of wind blew it into the pole.

Pilot Richard Gillespie said the journey had originally taken off from Kings Park, near the National Carillon, and had enjoyed a beautiful day before coming into land at Aranda.

"Unfortunately just as we touched down on the ground, the balloon slightly turned right and gift wrapped the light pole, so it just snagged the side of the balloon as we were coming into land," he said.

"We were on the ground as it snagged, so there were no injuries, no passengers were hurt or anything, but unfortunately it has damaged the balloon a little bit."

Mr Gillespie said ACT firefighters had used a nine-metre ladder to climb up the light pole and cut one the balloon's straps which had become tangled around the pole.

"I've seen it happen before," he said.

"It's pretty rare but I have seen balloons snag things. It doesn't happen regularly at all but it's something that can happen."

Mr Gillespie said he had been flying balloons for about 20 years, seven of those in Canberra, and nothing like this had ever happened before.

"I've probably flown over Canberra probably 2000 times I guess, something like that," he said.

Mr Gillespie said, despite the odd landing, all the passengers left happy and satisfied.

The pilots of the very light jet were conducting a positioning flight in instrument meteorological conditions. The flight was cleared by air traffic control for the instrument landing system (ILS) approach; upon being cleared for landing, the tower controller reported to the crew that there was no standing water on the runway. Review of the airplane's flight data recorder (FDR) data revealed that the airplane reached 50 ft above touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) at an indicated airspeed of 118 knots (KIAS). The airplane crossed the runway displaced threshold about 112 KIAS, and it touched down on the runway at 104 KIAS with about a 7-knot tailwind.FDR data revealed that, about 1.6 seconds after touchdown of the main landing gear, the nose landing gear touched down and the pilot's brake pedal input increased, with intermediate oscillations, over a period of 7.5 seconds before reaching full pedal deflection. During this time, the airplane achieved its maximum wheel braking friction coefficient and deceleration. The cockpit voice recorder recorded both pilots express concern the that the airplane was not slowing. About 4 seconds after the airplane reached maximum deceleration, the pilot applied the emergency parking brake (EPB). Upon application of the EPB, the wheel speed dropped to zero and the airplane began to skid, which resulted in reverted-rubber hydroplaning, further decreasing the airplane's stopping performance. The airplane continued past the end of the runway, crossed a service road, and came to rest in a drainage ditch. Postaccident examination of the brake system and data downloaded from the brake control unit indicated that it functioned as commanded during the landing. The airplane was not equipped with thrust reversers or spoilers to aid in deceleration.The operator's standard operating procedures required pilots to conduct a go-around if the airspeed at 50 ft above TDZE exceeded 111 kts. Further, the landing distances published in the airplane flight manual (AFM) are based on the airplane slowing to its reference speed (Vref) of 101 KIAS at 50 ft over the runway threshold. The airplane's speed at that time exceeded Vref, which resulted in an increased runway distance required to stop; however, landing distance calculations performed in accordance with the AFM showed that the airplane should still have been able to stop on the available runway. An airplane performance study also showed that the airplane had adequate distance available on which to stop had the pilot continued to apply maximum braking rather than engage the EPB. The application of the EPB resulted in skidding, which increased the stopping distance.Although the runway was not contaminated with standing water at the time of the accident, the performance study revealed that the maximum wheel braking friction coefficient was significantly less than the values derived from the unfactored wet runway landing distances published in the AFM, and was more consistent with the AFM-provided landing distances for runways contaminated with standing water.Federal Aviation Administration Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 15009 warns operators that, "the advisory data for wet runway landings may not provide a safe stopping margin under all conditions" and advised them to assume "a braking action of medium or fair when computing time-of-arrival landing performance or [increase] the factor applied to the wet runway time-of-arrival landing performance data."It is likely that, based on the landing data in the AFM, the crew expected a faster rate of deceleration upon application of maximum braking; when that rate of deceleration was not achieved, the pilot chose to engage the EPB, which only further degraded the airplane's braking performance.

Probable Cause and FindingsThe National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The pilot's engagement of the emergency parking brake during the landing roll, which decreased the airplane's braking performance and prevented it from stopping on the available runway. Contributing to the pilot's decision to engage the emergency parking brake was the expectation of a faster rate of deceleration and considerably shorter wet runway landing distance provided by the airplane flight manual than that experienced by the crew upon touchdown and an actual wet runway friction level lower than the assumed runway fiction level used in the calculation of the stopping distances published in the airplane flight manual.

NTSB Identification: CEN15LA05714 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Friday, November 21, 2014 in Sugarland, TXAircraft: EMBRAER S.A. EMB-500, registration: N584JSInjuries: 2 Uninjured.NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.HISTORY OF FLIGHTOn November 21, 2014, about 1010 central standard time, an Embraer EMB-500 (Phenom 100) airplane, N584JS, overran the runway after landing at Sugar Land Regional Airport (SGR), Sugar Land, Texas. The airline transport-rated pilots were not injured and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was being operated by Superior Air Charter, LLC, Irvine, California (doing business as JetSuite Air), as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 positioning flight. Instrument meteorological conditions existed at the airport at the time of the accident, and the flight operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan. The flight originated from William P. Hobby Airport (HOU), Houston, Texas.According to the pilots, the purpose of the flight was to reposition the airplane from HOU to SGR. During the approach to SGR, the tower controller provided the pilots vectors to the airport and then told them to expect the instrument landing system (ILS) 35 approach at SGR. After the accident, the copilot reported that the tower controller cleared the flight to land and that there was no standing water on the runway. The copilot added that, during the approach, there was a tailwind of 15 kts that decreased to 9 kts on touchdown. After landing, the pilot, who was flying the airplane, applied the brakes and noted no appreciable deceleration. She then pulled the emergency brakes twice, but the airplane continued past the end of the runway and onto a grassy area. The airplane then crossed a service road and came to rest in a drainage ditch facing opposite the direction of travel with the empennage section partially submerged in water.A review of flight data recorder (FDR) data revealed that, while on the ILS approach to runway 35, the airplane slowed to 120 knots (kts) and that it maintained that airspeed until about 155 ft mean sea level (msl), at which point it slowed to about 118 kts. The airplane remained on the glideslope until about 380 ft msl, when the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded an electronic voice stating "autopilot," consistent with autopilot disconnection. Shortly after, the airplane descended below the glideslope. The airplane crossed the displaced threshold about 100 ft msl and at 112 kts indicated airspeed (KIAS), and touched down at 1010:37, about 1,040 ft from the threshold, at an airspeed of 104 KIAS. During the landing roll, the CVR recorded the pilots concern about the airplane's lack of deceleration.About 1.6 seconds after touchdown, the nose landing gear touched down, and the pilot's brake pedal increased, with intermediate oscillations, over a period of 7.5 seconds and reached full pedal deflection. About 4 seconds later, the emergency/parking brake (EPB) was applied, at which point the wheel speed dropped from 70 to 0 kts, consistent with a locked-wheel skid. Concurrently, the FDR recorded an engine indication and crew alerting system ANTI-SKID FAIL message, consistent with the application of the EPB and locking of the wheels. The airplane departed the runway at 1011:15 at a groundspeed of about 30 KIAS. Shortly after, the FDR recorded accelerations consistent with the impact and airplane coming to a stop.PERSONNEL INFORMATIONPilotThe pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with airplane single-engine land, multi-engine land, and instrument ratings. Additionally, she held an instructor's certificate with airplane single-engine and instrument ratings. She reported that she had 6,311 total flight hours and 1,110 hours in the accident airplane make and model. The captain was issued a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) first-class medical certificate on July 29, 2014.CopilotThe copilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with airplane single-engine land, multi-engine land, and instrument ratings. He reported that he had 4,232 total flight hours and 814 hours in the accident airplane make and model. The copilot was issued an FAA first-class medical certificate on July 26, 2014, with the restriction, "must wear corrective lenses."AIRCRAFT INFORMATIONThe Embraer EMB-500 Phenom 100 is included in the very light jet (VLJ) class of airplane. The Phenom 100 can seat four passengers in its normal configuration, but it can be configured to carry up to seven passengers. The airplane is equipped with two Pratt & Whitney Canada PW617-F turbofan engines each rated at a takeoff thrust of 1,695 lbs. The accident airplane's serial number was (S/N) 50000140 and was certified as a 14 CFR 23 normal category airplane. The EMB-500 is not equipped with thrust reversers, and prior to serial # 50000325 not equipped with spoilers. All EMB-500s from serial # 50000325 onwards are equipped with spoilers when delivered from the factory. The accident airplane was not equipped with spoilers.Brake SystemThe Phenom 100's hydraulic brake system delivers hydraulic pressure to the brakes via input on the brake pedals. The hydraulic pressure to the brake system is supplied at a maximum of 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi). The copilot's (right seat) brake pedals are mechanically linked to the pilot's (left seat) brake pedals. Each pilot brake pedal is connected to a pedal position transducer (PPT), each of which produces two independent electrical outputs to the brake control unit (BCU) that were proportional to the respective pedal displacement. The BCU controls the main brake system. The brake system is a brake-by-wire system with an antiskid function. There are no hydraulic components on the brake control; therefore, the only pedal force feedback to the pilots is from a force spring installed on the pedals. This provides a consistent pedal resistance regardless of the runway condition and the pressure applied.Wheel speed information is sent to the BCU via two axle-mounted speed transducers. The BCU uses the output from the wheel speed transducers, the PPTs, and two brake line pressure transducers to generate an electrical command to the associated brake control valve (BCV). Anti-skid protection is provided when the BCU detect a skid by monitoring the two-wheel speed transducer signals. If a skid is detected, the BCU sends a signal to the BCV to reduce pressure to the brakes. The antiskid protection cannot be turned off in the cockpit. The Phenom 100 is equipped with an EPB to stop the airplane if the main brake system fails and to provide means to keep the aircraft parked even when the hydraulic power system is turned off. The EPB is operated by a T-handle on the control pedestal. The handle is mechanically linked to the emergency brake valve. Upon using the EPB, the pressure applied is proportional to the handle displacement. No anti-skid protection is available.CertificationIn general, 14 CFR Part 23 certification regulations require that dry-runway landing distances be published in airplane flight manuals (AFM) and that they be based on performance demonstrated during flight tests on smooth, dry, hard-surfaced runways. Certification regulations do not require the publication of landing distances on other-than-dry runways, although certification applicants may choose to present this information to the regulator. If the applicant provided this information, it would not necessarily be based on flight tests (largely because of the difficulty of achieving a consistent "wet" or "contaminated" runway surface) but rather derived by calculations based on assumptions agreed to by the regulator.The EMB-500 was first certified by the Brazilian regulator (the Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil), which, like the FAA, does not require the publication of landing distances on other-than-dry runways. However, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) does require the publication of landing distances on other-than-dry runways if the airplane is to be operated on such runways. The unfactored landing distance is the actual distance from the runway threshold required to land the airplane and stop it without any safety factors applied. The factored landing distance is the actual distance from the runway threshold required to land the airplane and stop increased by a safety factor.Therefore, to certify the airplane in Europe, Embraer proposed to EASA that the unfactored wet runway landing distances presented in the EMB-500 AFM would be computed as 125% of the demonstrated, unfactored dry-landing distance, and EASA accepted this proposal. The factored wet-runway landing distances in the EMB-500 AFM are 115% of the factored dry distances or 192% of the unfactored dry distances. The EMB-500 is certified in the "normal" category, not the "commuter" category; therefore, 135.385(c) did not apply to the accident airplane. However, in practice, JetSuite operates the EMB-500 in compliance with 135.385(c). The EMB-500 AFM also provides a table of landing distances for landings on runways covered with standing water, slush, or wet snow at depths of 0.125, 0.250, and 0.375 inches.METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATIONAt 1012, the SGR automated weather observation system (AWOS) reported wind from 130° at 8 kts, 6 miles visibility, light rain and mist, broken clouds at 3,300 ft and an overcast ceiling at 4,200 ft, temperature 66°F, dew point 64°F, and a barometric pressure of 30.15 inches of mercury.At 1025, the SGR AWOS reported wind from 130° at 8 kts, 10 miles visibility, few clouds at 600 ft, and broken clouds at 1,800 ft and an overcast ceiling at 4,400 ft.AIRPORT INFORMATIONSGR is a public-use, towered airport, located 17 miles southwest of Houston, Texas. SGR has a single concrete runway, 35/17, which is 8,000 ft long and 100 ft wide. Runway 17 has a 380 ft displaced threshold; runway 35 has a 1,984 ft displaced threshold. Runway 35 touchdown zone elevation is 78 ft.FLIGHT RECORDERSThe CVR were removed from the airplane and examined at the National Transportation Safety Board's Vehicle Recorder Lab in Washington, DC. The FDR data file was downloaded by the operator and sent to the NTSB's Vehicle Recorder Lab. WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATIONThe airplane came to rest about 100 ft beyond the end of runway 35 down a small embankment in a drainage creek filled with water. The airplane had spun around about 148° opposite the direction of travel with the front of the airplane on the embankment The aft section of the airplane was submerged in water, and the tail cone was partly broken and separated from the empennage. The right main landing gear had collapsed, and the right-wing tip and aileron were damaged. TESTS AND RESEARCHBCUThe BCU was removed from the airplane and sent to the unit's manufacturer's facility in Ohio. No visual defects were noted, and the BCU was functionally tested, and it functioned normally. Data were downloaded from the BCU, and no abnormities were noted with the braking system.Airplane Performance StudyThe NTSB conducted an Airplane Performance Study for the accident flight to determine the airplane's position and orientation during the relevant portion of the flight and its responses to control inputs, external disturbances, ground forces, and other factors that could affect its trajectory. The study used various data sources, including FDR and airplane thrust and aerodynamic performance information. According to the performance study, the airplane's approach to runway 35 complied with the operator's stabilized approach criteria, with the airplane tracking the RNAV final approach course and glideslope at an airspeed of about 130 knots.The CVR recorded the copilot, who was the pilot monitoring (PM), call "1000 … stable" at 1009:10.3 when the airplane was at an indicated altitude of 1,103 ft (1,021 ft above the field elevation (AFE) of 82 ft) and about 147 KIAS, or 27 kts above the approach speed (Vap of 120 kts. Per JetSuite's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs, the PM would have been required to call "1000 continue, speed" because the speed exceeded Vap + 5 kts.As the airplane descended below an indicated altitude of 800 ft msl (about 722 ft above the touchdown zone elevation [TDZE] of 78.4 ft) while on the ILS approach to runway 35, it slowed to 120 kts, which is the flaps 3 Vap (approach speed) specified in JetSuite's SOPs. During the final approach, the airplane remained on the glideslope until about 380 ftmsl (302 ft above TDZE), when the CVR recorded an electronic voice stating "autopilot," indicating that the autopilot had been disconnected. Shortly after, the airplane descended below the glideslope. The airplane maintained 120 kts until about 155 ft msl (about 77 ft above TDZE), then slowed to about 118 kts at 50 ft above TDZE, and then slowed to 104 KIAS at touchdown.The airplane crossed the runway 35 displaced threshold at an indicated altitude of about 100 ft msl (22 f above TDZE) and about 112 KIAS, and it touched down at 1010:37.4, 1,040 ft from the threshold at a groundspeed of 111 kts with about a 7 tailwind.The CVR did not record the pilots making any speed callouts between 500 ft above field elevation (AFE and 50 ft above TDZE, even though at least one speed callout in this band is required by the SOPs. In addition, the EMB-500 AFM specified that at the landing weight of about 8950 lbs, the flaps 3 Vref is 101 kts. The SOPs required pilots to go-around if the airspeed at 50 ft above TDZE exceeded about 111 kts. As noted above, at an indicated altitude of 50 ft above TDZE (128 ftmsl), the indicated airspeed was about 118 kts, 7 kts, above the approximate 111-kts limit.The landing distances published in the EMB-500 AFM are predicated on the airplane slowing to reference speed (Vref at 50 ft over the threshold. During the accident landing, the speed at 50 ft exceeded Vref by about 17 kts and resulted in an increased runway distance required to stop. Runway 35, even with the higher threshold crossing speed and assuming that the airplane braking performance implied in the AFM landing distances could be achieved, had an available landing distance of 6,016 ft, which met JetSuite's General Operations Manual (GOM) wet-runway dispatch ("planning") requirement of 1.92 times the unfactored dry landing distance, which for this landing would have been 2,695 ft times 1.92 or 5,174 ft. About 1.6 seconds after touchdown, the nose landing gear touched down, and the pilot's brake pedal increased, with intermediate oscillations, over a period of 7.5 seconds and reached full pedal deflection at about 1010:46.6. During this time, the airplane maintained a deceleration (longitudinal load factor, nx) that oscillated between -0.05 and -0.10 G's; and averaged about -0.07 G's. At 1010:49.7, 3.1 seconds after the brake pedals reached maximum deflection, the nx suddenly decreased to a minimum (i.e., a maximum deceleration) of -0.162 G's. Between 10:10:50 and 10:10:58, the nx oscillated between about -0.11 and -0.14 G's. At 10:10:50.7, the Emergency / Parking Brake (EPB) was applied, and the right and left wheel speeds decreased to 0 at 1010:55.2 and 10:10:58.2, respectively. After both wheel speeds reached zero, the nx increased (indicating decreased deceleration) to between about -0.08 and -0.11 G's until about 1011:11, when the airplane started to yaw to the left and drift to the right. The airplane departed the runway at 1011:15, at a groundspeed of about 30 knots, and came to rest in a drainage ditch about 500 feet past the end of the runway.For about the first 12 seconds after touchdown, the computed braking coefficient oscillated about a value of 0.03 (the assumed unbraked, rolling braking coefficient) with peaks between 0 and about 0.1. The braking coefficient remained at this low value even as the brake pedals were depressed and then jumped to an average of between 0.13 and 0.14 at 1010:50, coincident with the decrease in nx (that is, increased deceleration).As part of the performance study, in May 2015, the NTSB and the parties to the investigation conducted tests on runway 35 at SGR to measure the runway macrotexture depth, cross-slope, and friction characteristics. The tests did not indicate any discontinuity or sudden change in the runway friction that could explain the computed braking coefficient jump. Further, the rainfall rate at the time of the accident and the runway's measured macrotexture and cross-slope characteristics precluded the possibility that dynamic hydroplaning caused the braking coefficient jump. The investigation was unable to determine the reason why the airplane's antiskid system, which normally controls the slip ratio, maintained a low slip ratio even as the braking command from the pedals was increasing.The airplane manufacturer provided a possible explanation noting that the EMB-500 antiskid system is a wheel deceleration control algorithm (MABS proprietary), not a slip ratio control algorithm; therefore, slip control is indirect and may be affected by wheel dynamics other than the ratio between wheel speed and aircraft ground speed.Embraer also notes that the EMB-500 antiskid system is sensitive to pedal input variations, as the input variation will immediately cause a pressure variation, so its effectivity is directly affected by the pilot inputs. At pedal deflections greater than 90% and above, the brake system considers full brake application. Pedal variations above the 90% threshold have no effect on the system.Brake pedals variations below 90% were observed throughout landing until actuation of the emergency brakes, therefore not allowing the antiskid system to reach maximum efficiency. The Embraer landing technique recommended in AFM is to apply and maintain full brake pedal application upon touchdown.The decrease in braking coefficient after the EPB was applied and the wheel speed dropped to zero is consistent with research indicating that the braking friction achieved in a full locked-wheel skid is significantly lower than the maximum braking coefficient that can be achieved at lower slip ratios. Examination of the airplane's tires revealed evidence of reverted-rubber hydroplaning, which is also consistent with a locked-wheel skid and reduction in braking coefficient. The findings in this accident and similar accidents investigated by the NTSB confirm that the actual braking coefficient that can be achieved on a wet runway may be significantly lower than the braking coefficient predicted by industry-standard models or the braking coefficient required to match the manufacturer's published unfactored, wet-runway landing distances. The results are also consistent with an Embraer Flight Operations Letter that states that the AFM landing distances corresponding to "standing water" contaminated runways may be more indicative of the airplane performance than the AFM "wet runway" landing distances, even for runways that would not normally be considered flooded (for example, even in the case of "light rain over a non-grooved runway or a concrete polished surface.") In this case, the AFM braking performance was not achieved because the actual braking coefficient generated between the tires and the runway was far less than the braking coefficient implied by the wet runway landing distances published in the AFM.In the comments on the draft Aircraft Performance Study for this case, Embraer disagreed with the NTSB's interpretation of Flight Operations Letter (PHE500-002/15) regarding the AFM landing distances on wet and flooded runways, as outlined above. Instead Embraer stated that "the "FOL highlights the difficulty in assessing the runway conditions (especially between "wet" and "standing water contaminated") and recommends operators to take a conservative approach to calculate the required landing distance.If the EPB had not been set and the braking friction had continued at levels attained early in the landing roll, then the airplane should have been able to stop on the remaining runway (about 795 ft from the runway threshold). Before landing, the pilots received a report from an air traffic controller that there was "no visible standing water on the runway." Given such a report, it would have been reasonable for the pilots to assume that the AFM wet runway landing distances, rather than the standing water distances, were more appropriate, when in fact the opposite was true. This scenario seems to indicate that, in the absence of prior experience on a given wet runway, if the runway is known or reported to be anything but dry, then the most conservative assumptions about the required landing distance should be used.See the Airplane Performance Study in the public docket for this accident for additional details.ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONJetSuite's P100 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) and General Operations Manual (GOM) excerpts: P100 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES1.5 Briefings1.5.2 Descent & ApproachIn addition to the elements of the approach procedure required for safe operations the following items must also be covered prior to any arrival:•Configuration - Planned Landing FLAPS, ICE PROTECTION, and approach type (NPA or Precision-like).•Runway - sufficient for the planned settings.•ATIS - Allows for the planned operation and settings.•Fuel – Amount remaining allows for the planned operation with sufficient reserves.•Terrain/Threats - Dominating terrain and any other considerations that may affect decision-making.2.9 Before LandingFor all approaches, there are a minimum of three occasions when the PM is required to verbalize his/her assessment of the stability of the approach. All three occasions are required to ensure the approach does not become destabilized. The first is at 1,000' AFE, at which point any combination of the 4 parameters may be out of limits. The second is at 500' AFE, at which point SPEED is the only parameter that is allowed to be outside limits. This allows a decelerating approach to be flown. The third is at not less than 50' Above TDZE, at which point SPEED must be no greater than Vref +10. This ensures that SPEED is within limits prior to touchdown.At 1000' AFE: If any of the following criteria are outside the stated limits, the PM will use the callout "1000 Continue" and add the quoted descriptor to make the PF aware of the items requiring correction:"FLAPS": Not indicating the briefed Landing Configuration."GEAR": Not indicating 3 Green DN indications."PROFILE": Outside 1 dot laterally/vertically if IMC, or visual equivalent."SPEED": Mean speed above Vap + 5 knots.At 500' AFE: If any of the following criteria are outside the stated limits, the PM will use the callout "500 Go-Around":"FLAPS": Not indicating the briefed Landing Configuration."Gear": Not indicating 3 Green DN indications."Profile": Outside 1 dot laterally/vertically if IMC, or visual equivalent.If the speed is outside the following stated limits, the PM will use the callout "500 Continue, SPEED" to make sure the PF is aware that a speed correction is required:"SPEED": Means speed above Vap + 5 Knots.Between 500' AFE and 50' Above TDZE:The callout "REF +/-____" will be made at least once prior to reaching 50" Above TDZE. This call may be made as often as necessary to aid the PF ensuring that SPEED is not excessive, and will be within limits prior to touchdown.At 50' Above TDZE: If the mean speed is greater than Vref + 10 Knots, the PM will make the callout "Go-Around".NOTE: Speeds in excess of Vref + 10 at 50' Above TDZE require a mandatory Go-Around.4.8 CW [Cold Weather] Before LandingConduct a positive landing to ensure initial wheel spin-up and initiate firm ground contact upon touchdown, achieving wheel load as quickly as possible. Such technique avoids hydroplaning on wet runways and reduces the strength of any ice bond that might have been formed on brake and wheel assemblies during flight. The factors that influence the occurrence of hydroplaning are high speed, standing water and poor runway macro texture. When hydroplaning occurs, it causes a substantial loss of tire friction and wheel spin-up may not occur. Icy runways can be very slippery at all speeds depending on temperature. Stopping the airplane with the least landing run must be emphasized when landing on wet or slippery runways.•Anticipate the approach procedures and speeds: A well-planned and executed approach, flare and touchdown minimize the landing distance.•Lower nose wheel immediately to the runway. It will decrease lift and will increase main gear loading.•Apply brakes with moderate-to-firm pressure, smoothly and symmetrically, and let the anti-skid do its job.•If no braking action is felt, hydroplaning is probably occurring. Do not apply PARKING BRAKE, as it will remove anti-skid protection.•Maintain runway centerline and keep braking until airplane is decelerated.GENERAL OPERATIONS MANUAL (GOM)ALL OPERATIONS - WET OR SLIPPERY RUNWAY CRITERIA: A runway is considered wet (or slippery) when conditions indicate:•Showers or occasional showers.•Heavy drizzle.•Continuous light rain, moderate or heavy rain, freezing rain of any intensity.•Snow of any intensity other than "light" with surface temperature below 28° F.•A runway is considered contaminated if it cannot be defined as dry or wet.NOTE: THE FAA HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT A RUNWAY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REFLECTIVE TO BE CONSIDERED WET. IF A RUNWAY IS CONTAMINATED OR NOT DRY IT IS CONSIDERED WET. REF: AC 91-79 APPENDIX 4.ALL OPERATIONS - "WET RUNWAY" EFFECTIVE LENGTH REQUIREMENT: If required by the type of operation, the additional 15% for wet or slippery runways and 15% for visibility conditions below 3/4 mile or RVR 4000 is not cumulative. Adding 15% to the dry runway length requirement satisfies either or both requirements. Although alternate airports are not always subject to the "wet runway" rule, to avoid inadvertent errors, JetSuite Air has chosen to enforce the "wet runway" rule at all alternate airports.EXECUTION - ALL OPERATIONS: All JetSuite Air P100 flight operations will use an additional 1000 feet operating margin to account for minor variations in aimpoint, Vref, negative slope, flare technique and delayed or insufficient braking. No pilot will land a JetSuite Air P100 aircraft if that weight exceeds:•Maximum landing weight in JS Logbook, OPERA, or the AFM.•A weight that will allow a full stop landing within the effective length of the most suitable runway for the following conditions:•Dry runways = dry performance +1000 feet.•Wet non-RFSC/AFSC = dry performance +25%+1000 feet.•Wet RFSC/AFSC runways = 6500 feet minimum.•Contaminated runways = applicable contaminated value + 1000 feet.For contaminated runways of any kind, the landing distance available must be the greater of dry distance * 1.67 * 1.15 or, the applicable contaminated value + 1000 feet.JetSuite pilots in the P100 will:•Use Flaps 3 for planning and execution on all wet runways.•Apply the brakes in one continuous application for approximately five seconds or until an appropriate level of deceleration is felt.•If no deceleration is felt after 5 seconds, pilots will initiate a go-around.14 CFR Part 23 Certification RegulationsIn accordance with 14 CFR Part 23 Section 23.75, "Landing distance," The horizontal distance necessary to land and come to a complete stop from a point 50 feet above the landing surface must be determined, for standard temperatures at each weight and altitude within the operational limits established for landing, as follows:(a) A steady approach at not less than VREF, determined in accordance with §23.73 (a), (b), or (c), as appropriate, must be maintained down to the 50 foot height and—(1) The steady approach must be at a gradient of descent not greater than 5.2 percent (3 degrees) down to the 50-foot height.(2) In addition, an applicant may demonstrate by tests that a maximum steady approach gradient steeper than 5.2 percent, down to the 50-foot height, is safe. The gradient must be established as an operating limitation and the information necessary to display the gradient must be available to the pilot by an appropriate instrument.(b) A constant configuration must be maintained throughout the maneuver.(c) The landing must be made without excessive vertical acceleration or tendency to bounce, nose over, ground loop, porpoise, or water loop.(d) It must be shown that a safe transition to the balked landing conditions of §23.77 can be made from the conditions that exist at the 50 foot height, at maximum landing weight, or at the maximum landing weight for altitude and temperature of §23.63 (c)(2) or (d)(2), as appropriate.(e) The brakes must be used so as to not cause excessive wear of brakes or tires.(f) Retardation means other than wheel brakes may be used if that means—(1) Is safe and reliable; and(2) Is used so that consistent results can be expected in service.(g) If any device is used that depends on the operation of any engine, and the landing distance would be increased when a landing is made with that engine inoperative, the landing distance must be determined with that engine inoperative unless the use of other compensating means will result in a landing distance not more than that with each engine operating.Section 23.1587, "Performance Information," stated the following:(a) For all airplanes, the following information must be furnished…(3) The landing distance, determined under §23.75 for each airport altitude and standard temperature, and the type of surface for which it is valid;(4) The effect on landing distances of operation on other than smooth hard surfaces, when dry, determined under §23.45(g); and(5) The effect on landing distances of runway slope and 50 percent of the headwind component and 150 percent of the tailwind component.FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO)The FAA has previously issued two SAFOs relevant to the circumstances of this accident. SAFO 06012, "Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival (Turbojets)," dated August 31, 2006, stated the following:This SAFO urgently recommends that operators of turbojet airplanes develop procedures for flightcrews to assess landing performance based on conditions actually existing at time of arrival, as distinct from conditions presumed at time of dispatch. … Once the actual landing distance is determined an additional safety margin of at least 15% should be added to that distance.SAFO 06012 noted that the dry-runway landing distances established during flight tests and that are the basis for the factored landing distances used by dispatch are shorter than the landing distances achieved in practice. In addition, AFM landing distances for wet and contaminated runways may also be based on the minimum dry distances obtained during flight tests. Consequently, landing distances on wet or contaminated runways computed from AFM data with little or no additional safety margin may be too short for normal operations. The SAFO recommended a conservative approach to assessing the landing distance requirements, including using the most adverse reliable braking action report or expected conditions for the runway and using values for air distances and approach speeds that are representative of actual operations. The SAFO recommended that a 15% safety margin then be added to the computed (unfactored) landing distance because "the FAA considers a 15% margin between the expected actual airplane landing distance and the landing distance available at the time of arrival as the minimum acceptable safety margin for normal operations."SAFO 15009, "Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways," dated August 11, 2015, warned that "the advisory data for wet runway landings may not provide a safe stopping margin under all conditions" and stated the following:Several recent runway landing incidents/accidents have raised concerns with wet runway stopping performance assumptions. Analysis of the stopping data from these incidents/accidents indicates the braking coefficient of friction in each case was significantly lower than expected for a wet runway as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Federal Air Regulation (FAR) 25.109 and Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7C methods. These incidents/accidents occurred on both grooved and un-grooved or non-Porous Friction Course overlay (PFC) runways. The data indicates that applying a 15% safety margin to wet runway time-of-arrival advisory data as recommended by SAFO 06012, may be inadequate in certain wet runway conditions.The root cause of the wet runway stopping performance shortfall is not fully understood at this time; however, issues that appear to be contributors are runway conditions such as texture (polished or rubber contaminated surfaces), drainage, puddling in wheel tracks and active precipitation. Analysis of this data indicates that 30 to 40 percent of additional stopping distance may be required in certain cases where the runway is very wet, but not flooded. Possible methods of applying additional conservatism when operating on a runway which experience has shown degraded when very wet are assuming a braking action of medium or fair when computing time-of-arrival landing performance or increasing the factor applied to the wet runway time-of-arrival landing performance data.Advisory Circular 91-79AThe FAA issued AC 91-79A, "Mitigating the Risks of a Runway Overrun Upon Landing," on September 17, 2014. The AC stated the following: Section 6 - DISCUSSION – HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH RUNWAY OVERRUNSj. A Wet or Contaminated Runway. Landing distances in the manufacturer-supplied AFM provide performance in a flight test environment that is not necessarily representative of normal flight operations. For those operators conducting operations in accordance with specific FAA performance regulations, the operating regulations require the AFM landing distances to be factored to ensure compliance with the pre-departure landing distance regulations. These factors should account for pilot technique, wind and runway conditions, and other items stated above. Pilots and operators should also account for runway conditions at the time of arrival (TOA) to ensure the safety of the landing. Though the intended audience of SAFO 06012 is turbojet airplanes, it is highly recommended that pilots of non-turbojet airplanes also follow the recommendations in SAFO 06012.(4) Know you can stop within the landing distance available. The cumulative effect of the conditions that extend the airplane's landing distance, plus the 15 percent safety margin, can be a substantial increase to the AFM/POH data, unless the pilot is aware of the items presented, and possesses the knowledge and flying discipline to mitigate the risk of a runway overrun.Embraer ActionsOn June 6, 2016, Embraer issued Revision 2, Flight Operations Letter PHE505-018/14 Landing Procedure Best Practices and Recommendations," which highlight some information contained in FAA AC91-79A in and add information specific to the Phenom fleet. The letter state that due to the antiskid function, the BCU will automatically calculate the maximum pressure delivered to the brakes based on the pavement condition. As a result, pilots will notice lower deceleration on a contaminated runway compared to a dry runway. The FOL contained the following:CAUTION: The emergency parking brake will always deliver worse performance when compared to the normal brakes with anti-skid protection. Its use is only recommended on abnormal conditions, when the BRK FAIL CAS message is annunciated. In these conditions, applying the landing correction factors, determinate by the QRH [Quick Reference Handbook], are mandatory.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On November 21, 2014, about 1010 Central Standard Time, an Embraer Phenom EMB-500 airplane, N584JS, over ran the runway after landing at the Sugar Land Regional Airport (SGR), Houston, Texas. The airline transport rated pilots were not injured and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was operated by Superior Air Charter, LLC, Irvine, California, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a positioning flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which was operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan. The flight originated from the William P Hobby airport (HOU), Houston, Texas.

According to the crewmembers, the purpose of the flight was to reposition the airplane from HOU to SGR. After departing HOU the flight received vectors from air traffic control, who also told the pilots to expect the ILS 35 approach at SGR. The first officer reported that the SGR tower controller cleared the flight to land and that there was no standing water on the runway. During the approach, the first officer noted that there was a tailwind of 15 knots that decreased to 9 knots on touch down.

After landing, the captain, who was flying the airplane, applied the brakes which were unresponsive. She then pulled the emergency brakes twice, but the airplane continued past the end of the runway and onto a grassy area. The airplane then crossed a service road and came to rest in a drainage ditch. The airplane's empennage section was partially submerged by water and the airplane faced the opposite direction of travel.

The airplane was recovered for further examination.

Two pilots of a small corporate jet walked away after their plane skidded off the runway and ended up in a creek.

The
aircraft, an Embrarer Phenom, landed at Sugar Land Regional Airport at
10:13 a.m, but then had trouble stopping, according to spokesperson
Patricia Pollicoff.

As the runway was ending, Pollicoff said the
pilot attempted to make a U-turn to keep the plane on the pavement. But
it slid tail-end first off the runway and into nearby Oyster Creek.

Both the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board will be investigating the incident.

Local
pilots immediately had their own questions about what happened, like
why the plane landed with a tailwind given the wet runway conditions.

"We always try to land into the wind," said pilot Mark Lasch.

"The
fact that he landed with the wind, you need much more braking distance
because you're coming in much hotter, much faster, so I'm sure that had
something to do with it," Lasch said.

It isn't the first Embraer
corporate jet to skid off a rain-soaked runway. Another aircraft slid
into the grass at the end of a Conroe Regional Airport runway in
September.

Sources close to the investigation told KHOU 11 News
that investigators will be looking into the braking ability of these
types of aircraft in light of the two incidents.

Pilot instructor
Eric Newman said wet runways are always a concern for aircraft with
wheel-braking systems, rather than reverse-engine thrusters.

"Usually on a wet runway we like to multiply the distance by two to make sure we have enough runway to land," Newman said.

"If
the book says it's going to take 2500 feet to stop we'll say we're
going to need 5,000 feet to stop on a wet runway," Newman said.

Pollicoff
said the pilot and co-pilot walked away after the landing with no
injuries. According to FlightAware, the aircraft was coming from Hobby
Airport and landed in Sugarland reportedly to pick up a passenger.

As
of press time, the Embraer Phenom jet was still stuck in the creek,
with no word on how long it would take to pull out and haul away.

The owner, a firm out of Utah, will have to pay for the removal according to an FAA spokesperson.

SUGAR LAND, Texas - A small plane skidded off the runway while trying to land at Sugar Land Municipal Airport, police said.

Sugar Land police said the plane slid off the end of the runway and spun around backwards, landing tail end-first into a creek.

The
plane had taken off from Hobby airport in Houston. Police say the
woman flying the plane and her passenger who is also a pilot were not
hurt in the accident.

Firefighters from the Sugar Land fire
department responded along with Sugar Land police. Spokesperson Doug
Adolph says there were no hazardous spills, but booms were placed in the
creek as a precautionary measure.

At around 1:50 p.m. the runway was reopened and the plane was removed.

The FAA and NTSB will conduct an investigation to see what caused the accident.